Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - vercingetorix

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 80
101
General Off-Topic Board / Re: SFLSD: Perspicacity.
« on: June 23, 2008, 10:10:55 PM »
BTW, I love Stan.  He convinced me to start posting over here. First time I've felt truly comfy at LSD.

ETA: Wally, reported it too.

your french is atrocious. tough crowd with which to hang if your french isn't up to snuff.

You're f-ing kidding me.  My house is bilingual. Go back to your racist thread.

ETA:  You've heard, perhaps, there's a dot quebec TLD which the Quebec legislature approved ten days ago.  My spouse wrote the resolution.

you apparently (i hope) didn't.  first of all it should read 'il "y'a"' with an apostrophe....additionally you should add "de la" before place.  just sayin. 

102
General Off-Topic Board / Re: SFLSD: Perspicacity.
« on: June 23, 2008, 09:47:00 PM »
BTW, I love Stan.  He convinced me to start posting over here. First time I've felt truly comfy at LSD.

ETA: Wally, reported it too.

your french is atrocious. tough crowd with which to hang if your french isn't up to snuff.

103
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: June 23, 2008, 08:30:14 PM »


one we know of. that problem with liars running government.

Cannot apologize for liars, I would point out however that Hillary is an accomplished prevaricator. No need to go into Bill's hundreds of equivocations.

Hillary's admitted Lies

Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won't Confess To

She didn't know about the FALN pardons.
She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
She opposed NAFTA at the time.
She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.
The billing records showed up on their own.
She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
She was always a Yankees fan.
She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

hahaha.  that really best you got?

and everybody see how little you want talk about preznit gump.

and you wonder why gop brand in gutter...

listen old boy, i've never claimed i'm a republican, or that i give a toss what happens to the grand old party in the fall.  i am certainly not a bush apologist. at best some of what he has done is incompetent (management of the war leaps to mind).   i just find the manner in which people rail against this administration for cloaking itself in secrecy and lies while avidly supporting an accomplished liar like hillary completely contradictory. all politicians lie, few lie as naturally as bill and hillary.  and if you think that's just partisan crap, i'm paraphrasing david geffen, who is, last i checked, not a card carrying conservative. most liberals find the double standard totally acceptable. race is yet another perfect illustration of this.  one misstep by a conservative and liberals scream for blood.  one of theirs can wallow in some of the most ridiculous racial invective and it's somehow less offensive, somehow easier to explain. b.s. is b.s. no matter what side of the political spectrum generates it. 

104
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: June 23, 2008, 06:26:53 PM »


one we know of.  that problem with liars running government.

Cannot apologize for liars, I would point out however that Hillary is an accomplished prevaricator.  No need to go into Bill's hundreds of equivocations.

Hillary's admitted Lies

Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won't Confess To

She didn't know about the FALN pardons.
She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
She opposed NAFTA at the time.
She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.
The billing records showed up on their own.
She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
She was always a Yankees fan.
She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

105
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: June 18, 2008, 01:53:15 PM »


by way, why not you in iraq if so committed?
[/quote]

if you read some of my posts you would see why this is such a ridiculous question.

106
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: June 17, 2008, 10:59:57 PM »
and what, exactly, so hard about withdrawing from iraq?

as you can assess, Obama has been sliding his timeline to the right since he said he would get us out of Iraq in a few months.  that's because he's now getting some national security level briefings and they're telling him that, even from a purely logistical standpoint, there is no way we can get out of there in a year.  and now even the mainstream tragimedia are admitting there is progress in Iraq. this will make it even harder.  that and his generals will all tell him that leaving according to his political designs would have disastrous consequences for the country of Iraq and the US military.

107
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: June 16, 2008, 01:25:08 PM »


I agree, though I think if you examine the issue you'll find (a) that voter fraud is not very widespread at all

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137171,00.html
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/02/voter-fraud-watch-could-acorn-scandal-in-washington-have-been-avoided-with-photo-id/

some more recent cases.  quite a bit actually.  most of it from the Democratic side.  again, they have far more motivation to participate in fraudulent voting schemes than Republicans.  a simple study in demographics will reveal why.

108
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: June 16, 2008, 11:59:26 AM »
Check it: I never said there was no fraud; I said there was no conspiracy to commit fraud.  Find and document one.


http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/fund200409130633.asp

another great article.  outlines why the Democratic party is far more vulnerable to succumbing to the temptation of committing voter fraud (and conspiring to do so).  a number of recent examples. 

109
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: June 16, 2008, 09:52:20 AM »
Miss P wrote:

If these are the most recent incidents you can muster, and the best documentation you can provide, I think I have made my point.

this article concerns abstntee balloting, also a nagging issue.  guess which party wants fewer restrictions?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/13/politics/campaign/13vote.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&oref=slog


110
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: June 16, 2008, 06:25:28 AM »
Miss P wrote:

No, you're wrong; I don't know where you are getting this stuff.  The bar for a facial challenge is higher than a bar for an as-applied challenge.  When the Court decided Crawford, it didn't say that the law was constitutional as it is applied.  It said merely that the law was not unconstitutional on its face.  In a later as-applied challenge, the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to develop the record on whether the law is discriminatory.  If it is, it may be unconstitutional.  Moreover, it does not have to discriminate based on suspect classifications to be subject to strict scrutiny or to be deemed unconstitutional.  Voting is a fundamental right; all burdens on the franchise must meet strict scrutiny.

[/quote]

if a statute says that "italian-americans" cannot vote, that would be discriminatory in its face.  this would be pretty easy to determine from the language of the statute, especially when you apply the strict scrutiny standard. this would be a determination as a matter of law and it would be dispositive. but if you passed a law stating that you have to be able to sing all the words to the "thong song" to vote and applied it only to those over 60, that would be discriminatory as applied.  since it involves a two-step process (1. is it discriminatory on its face, no, 2. is it being unfairly applied, yes) it is necessarily more complicated.  it requires collecting bushel barrels of data (facts) to show that it isn't happening in just a few instances but that it is a widespread issue. because it becomes a fact question instead of a law question it takes more time. this is why parties often choose to mount a facial challenge first, because it is easier. the parties in Indiana did it this way because 1. a finding of "discriminatory on its face" is fatal and 2. because they wanted to beat the clock to the fall election and this type of challenge takes less time.

you asked me to cite one example.  i cited two.  needless to say it often takes long periods of time for the story to emerge in cases like this.

in Wisconsin, if you cannot afford an ID, you apply for a fee waiver.  it's quite simple.  you don't pay one red cent. and those who are most affected by this aren't blacks, but latinos, mostly those who are here illegally. 

having an ID also makes sense for other unrelated reasons.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 80